Propaganda, Perception, and the Dangers of Assumption
By J. André Faust (June 07, 2025)
I don't know what Zelenskyy was thinking when he authorized the use of stealth drones to attack Russian airfields. Strategically, yes, it was an audacious and calculated move, clearly planned well in advance. But it also had to be obvious that such a strike—targeting the pride of Russia’s long-range bomber fleet—would escalate the conflict dramatically. In war, strikes like these don’t just damage infrastructure; they strike at the heart of a nation’s dignity. Historically, when national pride is wounded, the response is rarely measured.
What makes this moment even more difficult to analyze is that it came just as Russia and Ukraine were reportedly engaged in prisoner exchanges, including the repatriation of the deceased, and were actively discussing a limited ceasefire framework. That context adds a strange duality: a step toward de-escalation on one front, and a direct provocation on another. It makes me wonder if we’re seeing one layer of reality, or just the version we’re meant to see.
Both Russia and Ukraine are clearly invested in propaganda. That much is undeniable. Each side has something to gain by shaping public perception, both domestically and internationally. And for those of us watching from the outside, trying to assess truth through that fog is no easy task.
Lately, I’ve even begun to question how authentic some diplomatic encounters are. Take the recent meeting between Zelenskyy and Donald Trump. Trump and Vance appeared condescending and dismissive, but Zelenskyy—former actor that he is—didn’t push back much at all. Was that real? Or was it a scripted performance designed to serve different narratives for different audiences? I know that sounds far-fetched, but when war and politics intersect with public theatre, performance becomes part of statecraft.
One area I find especially difficult to pin down is the actual proportion of pro-Russian separatists within Ukraine. The Western narrative emphasizes unity, and much of the polling does support that, but Russia claims to be protecting persecuted Russian speakers. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, but it's important to understand just how much that proportion has shifted.
Before 2014, there were sizable pro-Russia sympathies in parts of eastern Ukraine, especially in Donetsk and Luhansk. Some surveys from that time suggested that up to 25–30% of people in those regions supported separation or stronger ties with Russia. But that support declined sharply after the annexation of Crimea and the onset of war. In more recent years—particularly since the 2022 full-scale invasion—nationwide support for Ukrainian unity has soared. Today, over 80–90% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions, including many in formerly skeptical eastern regions. Even Russian-speaking Ukrainians have, in many cases, grown more pro-Ukraine due to the ongoing violence.
It’s tempting to draw a parallel with the Quebec independence movement, especially the "Oui/Non" referenda under René Lévesque. But that comparison only goes so far. Quebec’s debate was largely peaceful and democratic. Ukraine’s situation is defined by invasion, occupation, and military violence. What might have been a cultural or regional disagreement years ago has now become, for many Ukrainians, a matter of existential survival.
As I continue to follow this conflict, I remind myself constantly to watch for signs of confirmation bias. It's easy to see what you want to see, or what one side wants you to believe. But if we want to understand the deeper realities of this war, we have to question the narratives—on both sides—and pay attention not just to what’s being said, but what’s being left out.
